[Imc-uk-process] Deadlines and Ultimatums

[Radicale]

Hello all,

I would just like to second what Genny has said, could not have put it better myself.

Regards,


Radicale
radicale at riseup.net



On 19 Apr 2011, at 20:21, Genny wrote:

> Hello
> 
> I was present at the Bradford meeting and it was explicitly stated there
> that the agreement would not stand if group A (now Mayday collective)
> were not able to complete a safe passage through new-imc process in
> time. This was discussed more than once and statements were made by
> members of London imc along the lines of 'we had better make sure we
> help you get through new-imc so the fork can go ahead'. These statements
> were made both before and after the fork was agreed - in other words, it
> was agreed on this basis. As I understood it, this was not a case of
> London saying they would somehow engineer our passage through new-imc
> process, but that they would support us and help us get through as this
> would be in everyone's interests in order for the fork to proceed. This
> has not happened.
> 
> If the people who made these statements thought all along that the fork
> could go ahead without group A getting through new-imc process, then the
> meeting was deliberately misled. I would not have gone along with the
> agreement on the basis that the fork would go ahead regardless and this
> was NOT what was agreed.
> 
> If the minutes don't record precisely this point, then that's
> unfortunate, but it doesn't change what was said and agreed in the
> meeting. After spending  a lot of time to no good effect trying to
> ensure that the minutes of the previous network meeting accurately
> reflected what happened, I had neither the time, energy nor inclination
> to do the same all over again with this meeting.
> 
> cheers
> 
> genny
> 
> 
> Garcon du Monde wrote:
>> hello,
>> 
>> i'm writing this email as both an individual and an individual who was
>> *not* present in bradford, at the last network meeting. this latter
>> point, specifically, i think is relevant.
>> 
>> it is relevant because my understanding of the bradford meeting and the
>> agreements that were made there have been influenced only by the meeting
>> minutes:
>> 
>> * http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2010-December/1211-v5.html
>> 
>> i note that not only were the minutes made public on the same day as the
>> meeting, but that this was *only* done following agreement from *all
>> parties* present at the meeting. see the "decision at 20:28" section
>> right at the end.
>> 
>> thus, my interpretation is that it is not possible for anyone to BLOCK
>> or even to block any of the decisions made at that time. if there were
>> to be any blocks, they should have been made by the people present at
>> that meeting - and there were representatives from all collectives at
>> that meeting. however, all present at that meeting agreed with the final
>> minutes, and it is clearly stated that "Everything has to be done by the
>> first of May, but should be done earlier." (decision 19:18) i would
>> imagine this interpretation would be pretty similar to that of others
>> who were also not at the meeting.
>> 
>> solidarity,
>> 
>> 	--gdm
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:25:24PM +0100, Mr. Demeanour wrote:
>> 
>>> [I originally sent this email to this list using the Mayday collective's
>>> email address as the sender. It was bounced, which is unfortunate: the
>>> only purpose of this list, at present, is for the Mayday Collective to
>>> communicate with other UK collectives concerning the fork. Could a mod
>>> please authorise Mayday Collective to post to this list unmoderated?
>>> Thanks.]
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The Mayday Collective notes the various emails from nab [1], Bristol IMC
>>> [2] and London IMC [3], and from Listwork [4].
>>> 
>>> 1. We object to the closing down of lists that we are using for newswire
>>> moderation. We BLOCK the closing of the uk-moderation and uk-features
>>> lists on May 1. We suggest that closing the uk-process list on May 1
>>> appears to be premature, since the agreement seems unlikely to be
>>> completed by that date.
>>> 
>>> 2. We are not willing to move to a temporary URL on May 1. We are
>>> therefore blocking the proposal that DNS changes should be made that are
>>> adverse to the UK/Mayday site, until such a time as our status as an IMC
>>> has been properly resolved.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Mayday Collective.
>>> 
>>> __
>>> Imc-uk-process mailing list
>>> Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __
>>> Imc-uk-process mailing list
>>> Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
>>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
>>> 
> 
> __
> Imc-uk-process mailing list
> Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process